The nine judges also decided to take under review a case on government intrusion into the privacy of a person's home, which involved police using a thermal imaging device to snoop on residences in working-class neighborhoods.

In an 8-1 vote the High Court overturned an Illinois appellate court decision stating cops violated the constitutional rights of Charles McArthur when they prevented him from going into his house trailer while they were getting a search warrant. McArthur was kept outside his home in Sullivan, Illinois, for two hours in 1997 after he told the police they could not enter his residence without a warrant. When a cop returned with one, they conducted a search and allegedly found less than 2.5 grams of marijuana in the house.

The Fourth Amendment, which provides guarantees against illegal searches and seizures, requires police to have a warrant before conducting a search. The government has established several exceptions, including when cops claim a person is supposedly destroying evidence.

"Given the nature of the intrusion and the law enforcement interest at stake, this brief seizure of the premises was permissible," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for the eight-member majority. The police "imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests."

In a concurring opinion, Justice David Souter said the cops could have allowed McArthur to enter his home and followed him inside under the pretext that they believed he was destroying evidence. He said the cops' decision to impound his home was less intrusive than this action that they could have taken.  
 
High-tech snooping devices
After announcing their decision in the Illinois case, the justices decided to review a 1992 case from Oregon involving the government's use of technology against a person's right to privacy. Among the tools at the disposal of cops to spy on individuals is the Agema Thermovision 210, which measures heat patterns. "Police use them because sometimes a suspicious heat flow can be evidence of criminal conduct," the Washington Post reported February 21.

While snooping on a neighborhood in Florence, Oregon, on Jan. 16, 1992, the cops used a thermal imager to record infrared radiation emanating from the house of Danny Kyllo, a 35-year-old laundry worker. Ten days later cops burst into Kyllo's home with a search warrant and found heat lamps and marijuana plants. He was arrested and sentenced to more than five years in prison. Kyllo appealed his conviction on the grounds that the cops should have had a warrant before using the thermal imager.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at first overturned the lower court's decision against Kyollo, but in a rehearing a new panel of judges sided with the government, saying the cops' use of the thermal imager did not amount to a search and did not violate Kyllo's Fourth Amendment rights.

Kyllo's attorney, Timothy Lerner, asserted that use of the snooping tool was an invasion of his right to privacy. "Home is a basic refuge for all citizens," said Lerner. He compared the thermal imager to wiretapping and other electronic spying tools for which Supreme Court rulings mandate warrants be obtained prior to being used by the cops.

Government lawyers claim that the device only shows heat emissions, emphasizing that it does not reveal any particular objects or people behind walls. But witnesses have testified in the courts that a thermal image taken through an open window can reveal some activities of a person in a darkened room.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case by the summer.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home